I don't see where anyone is being attacked, just some catty comments that really have no meaning in a good debate. As well as WAY too much use of this smiley ----> Can't we all vow to use it when referring to things such as "dumb dog ran into the wall "

This is a wonderful forum, with great people! Let's all remember where we came from, other forums and encourage each other to have debates without snide remarks, and taking things to the extreme or personal levels. Moderators have just as much right to their opinions, and ability to debate a topic as any other forum user. Only difference in Debby or any other moderator is they have a few more buttons to access, no reason for them to be held to a higher standard, or not have the right to debate a topic well within the rules of the forum.

I agree, that if I can't afford my dogs, than I have too many. It is a personal preference for ME......

SisMorphine wrote:I guess when I do things I make sure they are done right. I don't believe in pulling a dog from a shelter and having it eat crap and just sit around while being fostered. I believe in feeding that dog the highest quality kibble and making sure that dog has a buttload of training and socialization because that is the real responsibility of a foster home . . . not just to be a space away from a shelter.

Well if her post wasn't an attack, yours sure was...

Where is the evidence that either of the dogs we have rescued are living like this?

Brutus has been temperament tested by ATTS, I am doing daily training with him, he is only in his crate when I'm not home, I am up at 6 am putting him outside because he can't hold it any longer than that, we go for daily walks to meet new people and dogs, etc.

Yeah, and Kirkland is "crap" food and he's better off dead... Right....

SisMorphine wrote:$64 a month. Let's break that down, shall we?$64 will buy 5 or 6 pizzas$64 is one meal at a decent restaurant$64 is 3 30 racks of Budweiser (shut up, I went to UMass, I know these things)

I don't drink, eat pizza, or go out to dinner. I can't afford it.

It's not like I'm just sitting on a big ol pile of cash here and refusing to use it to buy dog food.... I don't have it. Period.

msvette2u wrote:Since this thread has started I've stated again and again our animals' health is not suffering. IF it did, I'd reconsider our choices with 1) feeding and/or 2) the amt. of animals we have. But since it isn't happening the point is moot.

Somehow, Lindsay, I have a feeling that no matter what we said we fed them - we'd have been attacked. Oops that is unless we said "raw"

Where the hell do you get that?

High quality kibble: good. Low Quality kibble: bad.

I have absolutely NO problem if you feed a high quality kibble. Its not MY choice, but whatever.

I guess the conclusion we have gotten to is pet nutrition is way more important to some people than it is to others. I want the best for my dogs but some people dont think it's that important.

If we couldn't afford our dogs we would not have them either.

That is the difference. If I couldnt afford the best for my dogs, I wouldnt have them.

Linsday, you still have not responded to the post that I already quoted once.

$64 a month. Let's break that down, shall we?$64 will buy 5 or 6 pizzas$64 is one meal at a decent restaurant$64 is 3 30 racks of Budweiser (shut up, I went to UMass, I know these things)

It's not that much. How much are you spending now a month? I bet the difference between the two is equal to a night at the movies and a pizza, so why not just give that up each month? I was spending $150 a month on one dog last summer/fall . . . and I was only making $100 a week. He came first.

I guess my issue is that I am no longer a bleeding heart. There was a point at which my roommates and I had 2 ferrets, 2 rabbits, 5 rats, and 5 chinchillas in a small apartment that didn't allow any pets. With the exception of the ferrets all of the other pets were rescues because we were bleeding hearts.

Do I regret saving them and spending my paycheck on them each week? Nope. But would I overload myself like that again? Absolutely not. It killed my standard of living, stripped me of all cash, because I insisted on feeding all of those animals correctly, including my roommate's chinchillas as he would feed them Taco Bell instead of proper chin food. I wouldn't have it. I spread myself too thin.

Now I've grown up, I've matured, and I have realized my limit (much like how in college you would constantly drink until you puked Freshman year . . . but by Senior year you knew your limit). I will not compromise my animal's health to add more to this house than I can handle. And this is why I'm not a rescuer. I *gasp* put myself and my family before all else *what a selfish bitch* My family includes my two dogs and my rabbit. I will not sacrifice our standard of living and our health.

PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS AS AN ATTACK! I have a background in sociology and this is the way my mind works.

I am wondering if our differences here are based on a difference in a standard of living. And by that I'm not trying to say "ya'll are rednecks and we's kings and queens." Standard of living is how you feel comfortable living your life, mostly based on how you were brought up.

I will admit, I have a pretty high standard of living. It's been rough these past 4 years not being able to live up to that standard, and frankly it has taken a toll on my emotional state. I have pushed that standard of living onto my own animals. But because I am in control of their SOL I don't feel that I can compromise theirs as they have no choice in the matter, so if it came down to that again I would first compromise my SOL. But I don't want to compromise my SOL if it's not necessary (ie: adding more animals).

Different people have different SOL due to backgrounds (usually a combination of ethnic, moral, social class, area of the country, etc). Mine's high, I admit it. I have trouble understanding how peopple can have a different SOL than me (whether it be higher or lower) I admit that also. So I guess what I'm saying is that as long as your SOL is the same or lower than that which you assign to your pets, I really can't have an issue with it. My mind still gets slightly closed around SOL topics, which is something that I admittedly have to work on.

Truce? (Is that even how you spell that? I've ever had to write it down before . . .)

"All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another." -Anatole France

But how do you know these are problems associated with a kibble diet? You have no evidence for that, you are just assuming it.

From certain kibbles? Yes. I have never said that some dogs dont do great on kibble. I dont have a problem if you feed a high quality kibble. I AM saying that alot of kibbles are unhealthy for dogs. AND I am saying that I believe that these problems are much less likely to occur on raw than on most kibbles (because most kibbles are crap...)

How old was the cat? How much was it being fed? How much exercise was it getting?

It was a DOG. (wow...) "It" was being fed.... 2 cups a day? Maybe 3? He was a 9 yr old GSHP. He got plenty of exercise.

Did she get a skin scraping for mange? Do you know what it was that she had?

Yes. It was demodex mange.

I'm glad she is better, but you have no evidence whatsoever that it was the raw diet that did it. Sorry.

Maybe I dont have actual evidence in her case, but I do in another. A friend of mine has a dog who had a mild case of demodex. The dog was eating MERRICK. She switched the dog to raw, and POOF! No more demodex.

If she was allergic to something in the kibble, then replacing that kibble with another kibble that did not contain the ingredient she was allergic to would also have stopped her problems.

Yes, I'm sure she would have gone very well on a high quality kibble. I never said she wouldnt. I said that I fed raw to a dog with a compromised immune system, and it worked.

PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS AS AN ATTACK! I have a background in sociology and this is the way my mind works.

I am wondering if our differences here are based on a difference in a standard of living. And by that I'm not trying to say "ya'll are rednecks and we's kings and queens." Standard of living is how you feel comfortable living your life, mostly based on how you were brought up.

I will admit, I have a pretty high standard of living. It's been rough these past 4 years not being able to live up to that standard, and frankly it has taken a toll on my emotional state. I have pushed that standard of living onto my own animals. But because I am in control of their SOL I don't feel that I can compromise theirs as they have no choice in the matter, so if it came down to that again I would first compromise my SOL. But I don't want to compromise my SOL if it's not necessary (ie: adding more animals).

Different people have different SOL due to backgrounds (usually a combination of ethnic, moral, social class, area of the country, etc). Mine's high, I admit it. I have trouble understanding how peopple can have a different SOL than me (whether it be higher or lower) I admit that also. So I guess what I'm saying is that as long as your SOL is the same or lower than that which you assign to your pets, I really can't have an issue with it. My mind still gets slightly closed around SOL topics, which is something that I admittedly have to work on.

Truce? (Is that even how you spell that? I've ever had to write it down before . . .)

This kind of goas along with:

I guess the conclusion we have gotten to is pet nutrition is way more important to some people than it is to others. I want the best for my dogs but some people dont think it's that important.

SisMorphine wrote:We never said your animals were suffering either. Just that we didn't understand your justification for not feeding high quality kibble.

I don't have the money isn't a good enough justification?

And all this just because I said Kirkland's is all I can afford. Lovely...

cheekymunkee wrote:Nope, sorry. I refuse to have more animals than I can afford to feed a healthy diet to. If it means I can only have one dog in order to feed it the best food possible, then I only have one dog.

cheekymunkee wrote:Like I already said, if I cannot afford to feed my dogs a good diet I do not need to have them. Feeding crap just so I can have more animas is not acceptable to me. Same thing with kids, if I cannot afford them I refuse to have them, that is why I only have 1. Well, that isn't the ONLT reason but it is one of the major ones.

cheekymunkee wrote:That's what I am saying. What if your dogs get sick? if you can't feed them decent food how can you take them to the vet?

SisMorphine wrote:I guess when I do things I make sure they are done right. I don't believe in pulling a dog from a shelter and having it eat crap and just sit around while being fostered. I believe in feeding that dog the highest quality kibble and making sure that dog has a buttload of training and socialization because that is the real responsibility of a foster home . . . not just to be a space away from a shelter.

I'm going to get away from this thread for a while. I'm getting very angry right now and I don't want to call people names... Maybe I'll be back later once I've cooled down....

SisMorphine wrote:We never said your animals were suffering either. Just that we didn't understand your justification for not feeding high quality kibble.

I don't have the money isn't a good enough justification?

Nope. Sorry, but you have to plan ahead or have a back up plan for when things go wrong when you have pets. Things went very wrong for me last summer, I understand not having the money, but it's not an excuse. I busted my ass working crappy jobs that didn't have a steady schedule therefore I didn't have a steady income, but I made sure my dog's SOL didn't change because of it.
$64 is one night of babysitting a week.

"All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another." -Anatole France

Okay kids, TIME OUT!!! This very civil debate seems to be rapidly sliding downhill into attacks on people's budgets/standards of living/lives/pet-keeping skills. I think we can all agree that we love our dogs, right? That we want only the best for them, right? And that we've all done the research, and, based upon the research we've personally seen, chosen the foods that suit our dogs/budgets/lifestyles. I would love to see this thread get locked as I really don't feel anything else pertinent can be stated. Nobody has managed to change anybody else's minds - all that is happening is that our close-knit community that I love so much is going at each other's throats. Can we lock this?

"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"